This blog is about giving voice to the voiceless in occupied Palestine by myself and other contributing journalists who have seen first-hand the horror of Israeli apartheid.

Monday, December 04, 2006

"Israel needs a wake up call": An interview with Ilan Pappe

A tenuous ceasefire is holding in the Gaza Strip after almost five months of a heavy dose of “Operation Summer Rain” by the Israeli military.

The showers of missiles, aerial bombardment, military incursions into populated areas over the course of the five month ‘rain’ storm have left more than 457 people, a quarter of them children dead, and well over 1,00 injured.

As the Middle East quartet of the United States, Russia, EU and Israel stranglehold the Palestinian population by withholding monies needed to pay over 165,000 civil employees since march of this year, one wonders what is to become of this ongoing circle of despair and violence.

Since the summer rains began, many in the Israeli peace camp have remained silent about the ongoing crisis happening in Gaza and The West Bank. However, one voice remains constant in Israeli circles and continues to speak out despite opposition to the contrary. Professor Ilan Pappe is a professor of history at Haifa University. He has written numerous articles on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and has openly and continuously called for academic as well as cultural boycotts of Israel.

These pronouncements have made Professor. Pappe a scion in the eyes of the Israeli government and public, but he continues to move forward in the hope of reconciliation and justice for Palestinians.

I spoke with Professor Pappe about the current situation in Israel/Palestine via phone on December 1st, from his home in Haifa.

Christopher Brown: Ilan Pappe, Ehud Olmert recently appointed Avigdor Lieberman as deputy Prime Minister. A man who some consider a “fascist” in light of his views towards Arabs, and Palestinians in particular. Yet, the World press has barely said anything about his rants; for instance, that all Arabs should be expelled from the territories, and Arab Knesset members be executed for having any contact with the Hamas led government.

Meanwhile, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, has every word recorded for all to hear, regarding the Holocaust being a hoax, the destruction of Israel and the like; you’re response?

Ilan Pappe: I think you’ve put your finger on two very important issues. The first one is the ideology that Avigdor Lieberman subscribes to that is an ethnic cleansing ideology: Someone who believes that the only way to solving the problems in Israel/Palestine is by expelling the Palestinians from Israel and any territory Israel covets.

I think the problem with Avigdor Lieberman is not his own views but the fact that he reflects what most Israeli Jews think and definitely what most of his colleagues in the Olmert government think but don’t dare to say, or don’t think its desirable to say for tactical reasons. But I do think that we should be worried about Lieberman, not as an extreme fascist but rather as a person who represents the mood of Israel in 2006.

The second point is the double standard, the hypocrisy that you pointed to: Where you compared rightly to the utterances of Ahmadinejad are being repeated and how similar, and worse generalizations and attitudes by Israelis are not heard at all. And I think the reason has to do with the very peculiar standing that Israel has among the western world. Not in the eyes of civil society, I think that Israel in most people that live today in the west is a country that violates human rights, civil rights, and both its ideology and polices are not acceptable. But the governments are still very supportive of the State because the world is lead by an American president and a group of people who have a certain point of view, almost a religious point of view, in which such ideas like that of Lieberman fit well.

There’s not that much difference between Israeli policy and U.S. policy in Iraq. And I think as long as America is the super-power in the world and Israel is its closest ally, we will continue to see this double standard in the attitudes in governments and in the mainstream media.

CB: 61 Irish academics wrote a public letter in September calling for a moratorium on EU aid to Israeli universities, until Israel abides by international law and basic human rights and norms. In addition, A Canadian teachers union has also called for academic boycotts. Is this an effective way to pressure the Israeli government to address the occupation in a way that brings about justice for the Palestinians?

IP: It is an effective way if it’s not only an academic boycott. An academic boycott is only one component in what one cold call a cultural boycott on Israel. Because it will be very hard in this globalized world we live in to bring about economic sanctions, which would have been the most effective in forcing a change in Israeli policy.

The second best, and more feasible, is to send a message to Israel from the societies at large that its policies are unacceptable. That as long as it continues to do what it does it cannot be accepted into what it wants to do. It cannot be in the community of civilized nations.

I think there is both a symbolic and a very political significance to a coordinated reaction by societies in the west for a message, a clear message, that is conveyed in the way of a boycott of divestment or any other symbolic act which says that; there is a price tag attached to the policies that you pursue and as long as you pursue these policies, you are not welcomed here. Not as individuals, you are not welcomed here if you represent a certain ideology; a certain State; and especially if you appear as an official representative of this State. We are not inventing the wheel of course. The cultural boycott was a very crucial component in the action against Apartheid in South Africa. It was very effective and useful according to people who lived there.

The most important thing to remember about such actions is that they are nonviolent. One has to show that the Palestinians, and the Palestinians have to discover it themselves, that there are nonviolent possibilities in pursuing the struggle against Israeli occupation. Because if they are nonviolent, who could blame the Palestinians for using every desperate means at their disposal to try and stop one of the cruelest and most oppressive occupations in modern times?

CB: What of those [like the Israeli lobby groups] who would say that proposing a cultural and academic boycott is furthering anti-Semitism. How do you respond to that?

IP: Three points are important in this connection. The first one should highlight the fact that many progressive and liberal Jews both in the United States and in Europe are involved in the cultural boycott action. In fact in the name of their Jewish identity, heritage, their understanding of Jewish values, they stood alongside those demonstrators against the violations of human rights in the southern United States, in South America, in South Africa, and in Southeast Asia, they see no difference when it comes to Israel/Palestine. In fact, in this case even though it’s a Jewish State that violates human rights, does not change their position. Whoever is the violator, they should stand against them.

The second is; the Israelis are over-using the anti-Semitic accusation against anyone who criticizes them, not only those who call for a boycott, even the mildest criticism of Israel is depicted here as an act of anti-Semitism. I think with a good educational network, one could disseminate the views that this is an Israeli tactic that has very little to do with real or actualized upsurges of anti-Semitic feelings, which definitely still prevail in some parts of the world, and maybe one or two known anti-Semites have joined the wagon, but that doesn’t prove anything. The fact is that Israel wants to be immune from any criticism. And the shield it uses is always anti-Semitism.

Thirdly, and most important, one should differentiate between Zionism and Judaism. By now we can see after 60 years what are the implementations of the Zionist ideology on the ground from the Palestinian point of view.

This ideology may have done some good things for Jews around the world, but it is definitely something that does not allow the Palestinians to live in peace or even to live at all on their homeland; and this is Zionism. It has some connection to Judaism, but its not about Judaism its about a certain colonial ideology that still, in the 21st century, ascribed to by a State which is an unfinished project. The State of Israel has not been built properly. As you know we don’t even have final borders.

And I think it’s very important to educate people that this is not a Jewish question that we are dealing with, we are dealing with a certain relic of the colonial period that is still allowed to continue in a post-colonial situation. And as long as it continues, as it does, complicates the relationship between The Western world and the Arab world and The Muslim world.

CB: On November 7th the Democratic Party won elections that will allow them to control the Congress of the United States. The Democrats have been critical of the Bush administration’s policies regarding the handling of the Iraq war. But, the party has reiterated that the relationship between the U.S. and Israel would not change. Is this policy the best course of action for both countries, much less the Palestinians?

IP: Well, the results of the mid-term elections are good news from many aspects for the American public. But I don’t think [the elections] bring any good news to this part of the world. In other words, I don’t think that the shift in the balance of power in both houses would change American policy towards Palestine. It may change, and it should change of course, American policy in Iraq. But I think the Democratic Party is as committed to protect Israel, at the expense of the Palestinians, as was the Republican administration. So I don’t think that in the foreseeable future that we are going to see any fundamental change in American policy towards Israel.

You as whether it should, of course it should. It should because if it is loyal to the new perspective it brings to American politics: The idea that Americans should have some inhibitions in international behavior; that the use of force in Iraq was wrong; and that there is a problem with the American image and standing in the world; if indeed this is the message of the Democrats into American politics, then I think they should pay attention to fact that the Americans standing and position in the world is not only affected not only by the invasion of Iraq, but also for the unconditional support that America gives to Israel at the expense of the Palestinians.

I think that they should realize that only in a change in the attitude towards Israel and a much more honest brokerage in the conflict can really bring constructive change in the relationship between the United States and the Arab world and the Muslim world are, after all, one quarter of the world’s population.

CB: Peace Now (an Israeli Peace organization), has found that approximately 40% of settlements, including long-standing communities, are built on private Palestinian land and not on state-owned land. Peace Now came across this information from a source inside the Civil Administration who wanted to expose the wide-scale violations of private Palestinian property rights by the government and the settlers. Do you believe that there are more in the government who disagree with the treatment of the Palestinians and are willing to speak out?

IP: Maybe there are more but I believe that this is not enough. I mean this kind of criticism by Peace Now about the piece of information that they leaked to us is very important. But don’t forget for one moment any square inch that has been taken by Israel is an illegal occupation, not only the 40% that was private land.

It may be a starker violation but the whole Israeli presence there is a violation of human rights and civil rights. What is needed is much more than this kind of criticism. The problem in Israel is between Peace Now [Avigdor] Lieberman, contrary to what people are saying, there isn’t that much of an ideological distance. It’s a tactical question of how best to insure a Jewish state with a vast demographic majority is not exclusive.

Lieberman says, lets take any territory we need and achieve that goal by downsizing the number of Arabs living there. Peace Now says; no lets take less land and downsize the land rather than the population and then we can have the coveted exclusive supremacist State. Both positions are morally and politically wrong and unacceptable because at the end of the day you have 20% to 30% of Palestinians even in the smallest state that Peace Now covets and Peace Now is not willing to see them as equal citizens.

And people, even in Peace Now, would put the idea of a Jewish State above any other failure, democratic or liberal. So I think that even if I would have found in the government, or the administration people who want a cleaner mode of occupation, a more legitimized occupation, I would of course welcome it. But I’m warning we’ve been there before. These people have even been in government and they didn’t make any change because the reason for the ongoing conflict between Israel/Palestine is not because Israel occupies parts of The West Bank and Gaza and is not willing to give them back. The reason we have the conflict is the Zionist ideology. This is where it starts and this is where it ends. As long as the vast majority of Jews in Israel subscribes this ideology in its present interpretation, I’m afraid we will not see peace and reconciliation coming to this land.

CB: Finally, Ilan Pappe, what can people who hope for the security of both the Israelis and Palestinians do?

IP: Well I think everybody has his/her role to play, especially people who care, either those that belong to Israel/Palestine or care about Israel/Palestine. I think the Palestinians have their role of resistance; the progressive forces inside Israel continue to try and educated and change the point of view of their compatriots.

But society outside has to play the same role as the anti-apartheid movement played in the west during the heyday of apartheid. We need a strong lobby inside the western world, especially in the United States, but also in Europe that would send a very clear message to Israel; that these polices and ideologies are not acceptable, especially if you want to be part of the democratic world and we need you to change your policy; the ideological nature of the State and have a much more democratic society on the ground.

Israel needs a wake up call. Israelis don’t know that this is what the world thinks about them and I think that civil societies around the world can be the alarm clock for them, and they should be the alarm clock.

8 comments:

Subject:Jimmy Carter and Iran think about the same in regards to Israel’s connection to the war.

I saw former President Jimmy Carter being interviewed by Margaret Warner on the Jim Lehrer News Hour, about Carter’s newest book “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid” which just came out in November 2006. Former President Carter seems to have a lot in common with Iran’s President Mahmound Ahmadinejad. Needless to say if there is anyone who should have a repugnance to Iran it is former President Carter.

Two similarities came to my mind when I read LA Times reporter Maggie Farley, maggie.farley@latimes.com on November 30, 2006. She wrote Iran’s President said that:

1. U.S. backing for Israel is the key difference that alienates the U.S. from much of the Middle East.

Maggie Farley writes that the Bush administration dismissed President Ahmadinejad’s statements as a “public relation’s stunt”.

In my mind President Ahmadinejad’s statements is a “High Quality public relation’s achievement”. But I suspect the LA Times or any other major news outlet would NOT print Ahmadinejad’s skillfulness that cry’s “bipartisan negotiations” to help stop the war at the expense of Israel’s land grab and America’s oil grab.

relator, 1 a person who relates, or tells; relater 2 Law a private person at whose prompting or complaint a public action is begun to bring in question the exercise of an office, franchise, etc.

Sarcastic Official Proposal to the USA and the World:I Carl G. Mueller, writing as the above defined relator, prompt two public action(s) begin to bring into question the possibility of negotiating the legalization of:

1. The United Nations partitioning plan of 1947, in which the United Nations gave Palestinian/Muslim land to Israel.

2. The United Nations relativism to Palestine, Israel and the Middle Eastern War(s).

Carl’s personal comment:One basic note of corruption is confusion. Rational argument is used, not to clarify, but as a trap, to foster confusion and to nurture it as a major weapon against the fighters of corruption. Confusion, it would seem, is a prime weapon for distraction from the truth.

The Point Is:As we are seeing WWII isn’t over until Israel gives back the land the United Nations “embezzled” from the Muslims and gave it to Israel?

If my memory serves me correctly Israel has no constitution and operates under it’s religious laws.

I want to congratulate the Israeli soldiers who revolted against the government of Israel and refused to fight. In my eyes that’s the sign or “warriors with leadership” based on knowledge, not blind B.S. patriotic chauvinism.

A Real Sucker Writer Wanted:Perhaps “a real writer” could write a blameworthy book about the above statements. Then again maybe Jimmy Carter’s book does relate the United Nations 1947 partitioning plan and Israel’s land grab and America’s oil grab.

Israel Has No Constitution?Carter’s book might also talk about Israel not having a constitution thus Israel operates under Jewish religious laws and thus “believes” it is obligated to claim/embezzle “its religiously interpreted” holy-land away form the Muslims “belied” claimed holy-land?

A real sucker writer could weave the idea that, if America can force/hoodwink Muslims into believing a constitution is good for them then the United Nations can force/hoodwink the Muslims into being obligated into obeying human laws, thus not Muslim religious laws, thus thank you for your oil and land; sucker!

Anyway, thanks for the interview. Ilan is real good value. It's so unusual for anyone to see beyond the 1967 occupation, as he does,

'the reason for the ongoing conflict between Israel/Palestine is not because Israel occupies parts of The West Bank and Gaza and is not willing to give them back. The reason we have the conflict is the Zionist ideology'

Of course, it's not the ideology that's to blame, but its implementation.

BTW, I got here from a link on Znet and have now bookmarked your blog. You might find something of interest on mine: http://bureauofcounterpropaganda.blogspot.com/.

I want to bring to your attention some rather glaring proofreading errors in this text. I do this because this interview is important enough that it should get a larger audience, and it would be best to correct these to ensure comprehension and professionalism.

The 3rd paragraph opens: “As the Middle East quartet of the United States, Russia, EU and Israel stranglehold the Palestinian population” I believe you mean “strangle,” not “stranglehold.” The former is a verb, the latter, always a noun.

Most egregiously, the 5th paragraph opens: “These pronouncements have made Professor. Pappe a scion in the eyes of the Israeli government and public... ” I believe you mean “pariah” or some equivalent, not “scion.” Random House Dictionary defines “scion” as: 1. a descendant, 2. a shoot or twig, esp. one cut for grafting or planting; a cutting. As it reads, the phrase makes no sense. Also, note the incorrectly placed period after “Professor.”

The 11th paragraph from the end begins: “You as whether it should.” Of course, you mean “ask,” not “as.”

The latter of these two errors have already been changed in the version of your interview on zmag.org. Unfortunately, however, the article’s heading on that site reads: “Christopher Brown interviewed by Ilan Pappe,” which is, of course, backwards.

Lastly, your comment section on this blog is clearly being spammed. Blogspot.com may be able to help with this.

Your suggestions are absolutely correct. Indeed, one could go further. For example, in the third paragraph, where you are concerned with the erroneous substitution of 'stranglehold' for 'strangle', there are actually more substantive errors.

“As the Middle East quartet of the United States, Russia, EU and Israel stranglehold the Palestinian population…”

The Quartet (upper case Q) comprises the US, Russia, the EU, and the UN, not Israel. But more importantly, it is not the Quartet in particular that is doing the strangling. In fact, every country that had been providing aid to the PA is explicitly involved in the strangulation. And every country that hasn’t provided aid is, I suppose, also implicated in a more tacit way. The banks are largely responsible for refusing to handle transfers, even if they were available. But it’s not really their fault, as there is the threat that the US will freeze all their funds if they are perceived to be involved in transfers to ‘terrorist organisations’.

Furthermore, it is not the Palestinian population as a whole that is being strangled by this particular initiative. It is only the Palestinians of the territories occupied in 1967 and under the quisling ‘jurisdiction’ of the PA. The Palestinian citizens of Israel and the Palestinian diaspora are being strangled by other means.

The point is that the Palestinians under Israeli military occupation are under siege and the whole world is implicated, so why quibble over details. Everyone slips on matters of fact or substance or interpretation or grammar or lexicon or typing from time to time. I’d have written a different piece and conducted a different interview. But I didn’t. Chris did it his way, and fair enough.

Hi I'm a member of the lille.indymedia.org website. A french translation of this article has been sent to our site as a contribution. Are we allowed to publish it ? And generally, what about rights on other articles you have published ?